Person v. Google Inc.

Filing 26

Person v. Google Inc.

Doc. 26

Case 5:06-cv-07297-JF

Document 26

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] JONATHAN M. JACOBSON, N.Y. State Bar No. 1350495 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019-6022 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

CARL E. PERSON, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.: C 06-7297 JF (RS) DECLARATION OF DAVID H. KRAMER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PERSON'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Before: Hon. Jeremy Fogel

DECL. OF DAVID KRAMER ISO GOOGLE'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S ADMIN. MOTION CASE NO. C 06-7297 JF (RS)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:06-cv-07297-JF

Document 26

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, David H. Kramer, declare as follows: 1. I am a partner with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati ("WSGR") and counsel of

record for Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") in this action. The following facts are true of my personal knowledge and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently to them. 2. This action was originally filed by Plaintiff Carl Person in the United States

District Court of the District of New York. A true and correct copy of the docket sheet for the action, retrieved from PACER, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are excerpts from Person's Opposition to Google's

original Motion to Dismiss the action which reflect his first amendment of his Complaint. Judge Patterson in New York subsequently twice denied Mr. Person's request to further amend his Complaint. See Docket Nos. 18 and 19 in Exhibit A. Without ruling on the substance of Google's motion, he transferred the case to this Court based on the forum selection clause in the parties' Agreement. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an email Person sent to

our firm on October 15, 2006, acknowledging that Judge Patterson had denied his request to further amend and that Judge Patterson had ruled that Person had previously amended his Complaint. In his email, Mr. Person asked that Google consent to further amendments of the Complaint. Google rejected the request, believing that the proposed amendments were frivolous. 5. After Judge Patterson transferred this action to this Court, the Court set a March

2, 2007 date for a case management conference. On January 24, I sent an email to Mr. Person regarding Google's intent to renew Google's Motion to Dismiss on March 2, 2007. A copy of my message is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Mr. Person did not respond to the message. Accordingly, on January 25, 36 days before the March 2, 2007 hearing date, Google electronically filed its renewed Motion to Dismiss. That same day, Google faxed a copy of its motion to Mr. Person, and sent an additional copy to him via U.S. Mail.

DECL. OF DAVID KRAMER ISO GOOGLE'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S ADMIN. MOTION CASE NO. C 06-7297 JF (RS)

-1-

Case 5:06-cv-07297-JF

Document 26

Filed 02/12/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of an email I received from Mr. Person

after the close of business on February 8, 2007. Before we had a chance to respond to his requests, Mr. Person filed his administrative motion on the morning of February 9, 2007. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on February 12, 2007 at Palo Alto, California. By: /s/ David H. Kramer David H. Kramer

DECL. OF DAVID KRAMER ISO GOOGLE'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S ADMIN. MOTION CASE NO. C 06-7297 JF (RS)

-2-